Did God use Evolution?
*Update: This topic has been moved up due to the number of comments and level of interest. -SS 6/05/2005
The recent case concerning theories of origin in the Kansas State Board of Education's science curriculum raises many different questions. But one inevitable question is this: Could God have used evolution? The reason this inevitably becomes a question is because in the evolution vs. creation debate the two sides are always categorized as atheist vs. theist, and anytime that this happens there is always someone from the evolution side who says, "Hey, I'm a Christian, and I still believe in evolution." Hence the question: Could God have used evolution to create?
Of all of the many issues that are debated in our time, this particular one absolutely astonishes me. You see, I can tolerate a lot of debate and a lot of healthy skepticism and doubt. I can tolerate and accept differing opinions, suggestions, perspectives, etc. But there is one issue that I cannot figure out, and that is how someone who - A.) believes in special revelation; B.) believes in the supreme authority of God's Word (divinely inspired without error or defect in the autographs/inerrant/infallible); and C.) believes in the fundamental picture of God as painted by Scripture that He is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-good (omnibenevolent) - could possibly believe that God used evolution to create. The two (evolution and Christian creation) are about as compatible as oil and water. And yet there are those who even claim to be evangelical who believe in the evolutionary system. Why?
There is a story written by John Woodmorappe titled The horse and the tractor that appears on Answers in Genesis' website here. The story illustrates how ridiculous it would be to mingle God with evolution. The story and it's moral are as follows:
Likewise, imagining God ‘working through’ naturalistic evolution is as nonsensical as having a horse pull a tractor in neutral. If naturalistic evolution is a truly sufficient explanation, it will run on its own power—that is, account for what we observe solely in terms of natural forces and entities. We may envisage other roles for God (if we still see a need for Him), but creating living things isn’t among them.
On the other hand, if evolution isn’t sufficient (if the tractor doesn’t work) then why hitch God to the explanation? Why encumber God the Creator by asking Him to ‘pull’ a false, not to mention cruel and wasteful, evolutionary process?
Oddest of all, however, is retaining a nominal or strictly rhetorical role for God in a process that has no need of Him. The farmer who claims that, despite all appearances, the tractor runs because his horse is invisibly pulling it, isn’t going to win the confidence of his neighbors. Instead, they will probably pity him for his self-delusion.
‘Theistic’ and naturalistic evolution are functionally identical. The only distinction is the empty theological language attached in the former case—making no more difference than an invisible horse to a tractor.
For more on this topic see:
Biblical problems for theistic evolution and progressive creation
Theistic evolution: what difference does it make?
The recent case concerning theories of origin in the Kansas State Board of Education's science curriculum raises many different questions. But one inevitable question is this: Could God have used evolution? The reason this inevitably becomes a question is because in the evolution vs. creation debate the two sides are always categorized as atheist vs. theist, and anytime that this happens there is always someone from the evolution side who says, "Hey, I'm a Christian, and I still believe in evolution." Hence the question: Could God have used evolution to create?
Of all of the many issues that are debated in our time, this particular one absolutely astonishes me. You see, I can tolerate a lot of debate and a lot of healthy skepticism and doubt. I can tolerate and accept differing opinions, suggestions, perspectives, etc. But there is one issue that I cannot figure out, and that is how someone who - A.) believes in special revelation; B.) believes in the supreme authority of God's Word (divinely inspired without error or defect in the autographs/inerrant/infallible); and C.) believes in the fundamental picture of God as painted by Scripture that He is all-powerful (omnipotent), all-knowing (omniscient), and all-good (omnibenevolent) - could possibly believe that God used evolution to create. The two (evolution and Christian creation) are about as compatible as oil and water. And yet there are those who even claim to be evangelical who believe in the evolutionary system. Why?
There is a story written by John Woodmorappe titled The horse and the tractor that appears on Answers in Genesis' website here. The story illustrates how ridiculous it would be to mingle God with evolution. The story and it's moral are as follows:
Once upon a time, a salesman met a farmer, contentedly using a horse-drawn plough. The salesman, referring to the just-invented diesel tractor, said, ‘I’m here to tell you about a machine that will knock your socks off.’The moral: the folly of combining a horse and a tractor is equivalent to combining God and evolution in so-called theistic evolution. A naturalistic, evolutionary explanation (for the origin of life, for instance, or the origin of the first animals) doesn’t need God acting to move things along. God, like the horse, is quite irrelevant. If the tractor is working properly, the horse can wander in the pasture.
After learning how the tractor worked, the farmer remarked, ‘So, the tractor is a new means by which the horse pulls the plough, right?’
‘Not at all,’ said the salesman. ‘The tractor does not work with the horse. The tractor replaces the horse.’ The salesman then explained to the farmer how the tractor is self-propelling and simply does not require a horse.
‘I see now,’ mused the farmer. ‘Still, I can combine the horse and the tractor by placing the tractor in neutral, and then letting the horse pull it and the plough as well.’
‘Wait a minute,’ said the salesman. ‘That doesn’t make sense. Why have the horse pull the tractor and the plough? If you’re going to use the tractor, let it run on its own power. If you want to use the horse, however, let it plough by itself. Don’t make the poor animal pull a heavy machine for no reason.’
'In that case,’ replied the farmer, ‘I’ll drive the tractor, and just use the horse for recreation. But whenever I drive my tractor, I will tell everyone that my horse is really pulling it.’
Shaking his head in bewilderment, the salesman replied, ‘You can say whatever you want that makes you comfortable. But remember, the tractor is self-propelled. The horse has nothing to do with it.’
‘Oh, but now you’re wrong,’ said the farmer, with conviction. ‘Just because we can’t see the horse anywhere around the tractor doesn’t mean that the horse isn’t there anyway, pulling invisibly.’
The salesman sighed and put on his coat. ‘Yeah, right,’ he muttered, heading for the door. ‘I can’t get through to you. The horse has only an imaginary presence in the propulsion and operation of the tractor. In fact, sir, there is absolutely no difference, other than your saying so, between a tractor running by itself and a tractor being pulled by an invisible horse.’ And off he went to look for other customers.
Likewise, imagining God ‘working through’ naturalistic evolution is as nonsensical as having a horse pull a tractor in neutral. If naturalistic evolution is a truly sufficient explanation, it will run on its own power—that is, account for what we observe solely in terms of natural forces and entities. We may envisage other roles for God (if we still see a need for Him), but creating living things isn’t among them.
On the other hand, if evolution isn’t sufficient (if the tractor doesn’t work) then why hitch God to the explanation? Why encumber God the Creator by asking Him to ‘pull’ a false, not to mention cruel and wasteful, evolutionary process?
Oddest of all, however, is retaining a nominal or strictly rhetorical role for God in a process that has no need of Him. The farmer who claims that, despite all appearances, the tractor runs because his horse is invisibly pulling it, isn’t going to win the confidence of his neighbors. Instead, they will probably pity him for his self-delusion.
‘Theistic’ and naturalistic evolution are functionally identical. The only distinction is the empty theological language attached in the former case—making no more difference than an invisible horse to a tractor.
For more on this topic see:
Biblical problems for theistic evolution and progressive creation
Theistic evolution: what difference does it make?
15 Comments:
Sean,
I will probably get flamed for this, but here it goes… :)
A true Christian can not believe in evolution, in any way, shape, form, or partiality. I really don’t need to go any further, as that last sentence says it all. I will, however, defend that statement.
A Christian is a believer and follower of Christ. A true Christian believes in an infallible God. A true Christian believes that God ca not sin. A true Christian believes that the Bible is the Word of God, divinely inspired. A true Christian believes that God is all powerful.
Now, I will greatly summarize my post here, as I could write a book on this.
To accept any part of evolution does the following:
1. Denies the power of God
2. Denies the authority
3. Denies the Word of God
4. Is blasphemy, as it calls God a liar
5. Is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as He spoke the revelation of the Word to the writers, and are therefore calling Him a liar. – I will assume for now that we all know the consequences of this sin, for now. Hopefully those who claim to be Christians, and accept evolution do not know that they are blaspheming the Holy Spirit…Then it is without knowledge right?
So if you disagree with my opening statement that, “A true Christian can not believe in evolution…” then what you need to explain is how a true Christian can believe that God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is a liar, and is limited in power and not all powerful. Please also explain why the Bible is an erroneous book, and since you don’t believe in the Bible, what it is that you use to base your faith on that you might call yourself a Christian.
You can not say that the Bible is a lie, and still proclaim to be a Christian. You can not be a follower of Christ, if you deny Him. You can not be a believer in the Word, if you don’t believe the words. You can not have faith in the all powerful God, if you limit the power of your god.
If the god that you worship is a liar, and lacks in power to speak creation, than you are not worshiping the one true God. You may want to worship Him, and accept Him, and you still can, that is what we call grace, the fact is, you are not following Him, and have no relationship with Him if you don’t believe in Him.
I assume that if you are going to start a conversation with, “I am a Christian, and I believe in evolution…” you are either ignorant as to Christianity or evolution.
I like the horse story and it is a good logical example. Although, the scenario of the horse pulling the tractor in neutral could actually work, whereas “God helped evolution” does not. That is not to take away from the story, I still like it, and it gets the point across, that God does not need the “horse.”
As I don’t think that any of the posts so far have been from non Christians, there will probably not be an argument to this post, but I agree with Sean, and I am very passionate about false prophets, and think that they need to be recognized and pointed out. If someone preaches false doctrine, they are false teachers. Why do we (the Church) accept (tolerate) these false teachers and not speak out against them?
-Matt Gaiser
Matt,
I believe that a Christian should not believe in evolution...in the macro sense. We can all see microevolution happening, which is just another word for speciation. There is nothing non-biblical about observing variation in species (micro), but of course there is something wrong with one species changing into another (macro), which has never been observed. Of course, what does the word species really mean anyway? I use it in the sense of "kind", as found in Genesis.
Sean, we need to see a comment from you on the difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Sean has done alot of study in this area and I think he could clear up some muddy water.
-Ron
I would like to thank Sean at this time for his attempt at humor by adding "supposedly" a picture of me in the comment above.
Well, Jason did a pretty good job outlining the differences between “macro-evolution” and “micro-evolution” (although I somewhat resent having to use that phrase). We can define “macro-evolution” as the belief that one kind of animal (such as a fish) changed progressively into another (such as a bird), by gaining the information for things such as lungs, legs and feathers which did not previously exist. This is the traditional and hotly contested form of evolution. It is this evolution that asserts that all life began in a primordial “soup” of chemicals as early as 3.5 billion (with a “b”) years ago. From this soup the earliest microbes of life formed and through a slow process of gradual change these early forms of life developed into every form of life we see today. Therefore, all life ultimately has common a ancestor, and for humans our immediate common ancestors are monkeys. This is “goo-to-you” evolution.
Usually when evolutionists point to what they call “proof” of evolution (macro) they are really just talking about “micro-evolution.” Jason correctly labeled this “speciation,” which refers to the variation that exists within different “kinds” of animals. For example, there are many types of dog. But when a dog breeds with another dog it always produces a dog – every single time. Two dogs that mate never produce a cat. Within the original genes of the first dogs that were created existed all the genetic information that makes the many different types of one kind possible. The first two dogs very well may have looked like wolves. However, given enough time and different environments, certain genes within that gene pool might have become dominant, or information might have been lost. The result of this is a variation within the same species. But change by mutation never involves the addition of information. It always results in a loss of information.
This is where the evolutionary (macro) theory is shattered to pieces. Nowhere within this universe do we observe a biological change involving new information. You see, evolutionists like to make us think that life evolved (and is still evolving), but they never tell us where the information comes from (neither do they tell us where matter, space, and time comes from). When we apply the scientific method to the world around us, the only time we see change is when there is a loss of genetic information.
Don Batten, http://www.answersingenesis.org
/creation/v18/i2/dogs.asp:
“It is possible for mutation 'breeding' to generate new varieties with traits which are 'improved' from man's point of view (e.g. shorter wheat plants, different protein quality, low levels of toxins, etc.). Where such 'improvements' have been investigated on a molecular basis, researchers have found that the 'new' trait is not due to the appearance of a new protein, but the modification of an existing one, even when it seems to be a new trait, such as herbicide resistance.
In the whole creation/evolution debate, keep in mind that variation within a kind, such as through breeding or adaptation, is not evolution. All the biological / genetic 'evidence' for evolution is actually variation within a kind, not evolution at all. This includes peppered moths, bacterial resistance to antibiotics, insecticide resistance, horse 'evolution', Galápagos finches, Arctic terns, etc. Creationists recognize the role of natural selection in today's world, in changing gene frequencies in populations, but this has nothing to do with the evolution of some mythical 'simple' life form into a human over billions of years, because natural selection cannot generate new information. Nor can mutations, polyploidy, etc.
Evolutionists often call the natural variations in living things 'microevolution'. This misleads people into thinking that since such variations are real, therefore evolution itself — from molecules to man — is proven. There is no logical connection between varying gene frequencies in populations of peppered moths, for example, and the origin of the genes themselves, which is what evolutionists claim the theory explains.”
So in this debate let’s be sure that we understand our terms. We need to make sure that we make the distinction between the different types of evolution when we dialogue and debate with evolutionists. Otherwise, we fall victim to the stereotype that creationists don’t believe in science which clearly observes a “type” of change in living organisms, due to natural selection and speciation and genetic mutations. But to suggest that these changes are due to new information is a lie and runs contrary to the results of our application of the scientific method to our world.
Matt,
I'm not a scientist, and I certainly haven't invested the time and study into this topic like Sean has, so I'm going to avoid the scientific arguments for the time-being and just stick to theology/philosophy.
I need to get home ASAP, but I didn’t want this post to go on without a few quick comments (although, they will be undeveloped and open to plenty of criticisms).
There are multiple problems in evolutionary theory that I won't even try to defend, but your assertion that a true Christian cannot believe in evolution is a bit overstated. Genesis chapter one is written in a form of Hebrew poetry that can easily be interpreted in more than one way. A Christian must believe in Creation, the Trinity, Incarnation, and Resurrection, but I’m not convinced that a Christian has to believe in one particular interpretation of Genesis to remain a Christian.
I believe in God’s Word, but I don’t claim to know and understand everything in God’s Word. I think I can be a Christian even if I misinterpret part or have a false view on some Scriptural truth.
A person can still hold to the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture without believing in inerrancy.
Sorry, I’ve got to run.
Tristan,
While I agree that we, as Christians, can misinterpret Scripture, I don’t think that it is possible to misinterpret Genesis in a Darwinian fashion. I don’t think that it is even remotely possible to, exegetically, get anything close to “macro” evolution of species from Scripture.
Genesis says that, “God said…” and it was. That is really what my argument is. Now we as Christians can dialogue over things such as Genesis 1: 3 vs Genesis 1:14-19
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
VS
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
Some would say that on the first day, when He said, “Let there be light,” that the sun was created. Others would argue that He created the sun on the fourth day.
I am not sure, however, how anyone could misinterpret,
“26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.
as something like, God took the fish of sea and turned them into a man.
Now as I said, if someone professes to be a Christian, and believes in evolution (macro), then they are either ignorant of Christianity or ignorant as to evolution. Please note that I do not view or use the term “ignorance” in a derogatory way. It simply means to lack knowledge on a particular subject.
Certainly there are Christians that have been recently converted at a relatively late age in life, who have been taught evolution as fact, and have always believed it to be true, and they have not yet even heard of or read Genesis or anything about creation. This would make them lacking in knowledge about certain fundamental Christian beliefs (ignorant), but still saved. Grace is Awesome!
The main post by Sean, and my reply were directed toward Christians that argue for God-helped evolution. If someone is arguing an issue, we must assume that in order to have an opinion about each side of that issue, they are somewhat knowledgeable about the issue.
My statement is directed toward those who profess Christianity, and have read Genesis, know what the Bible has to say about creation, and they choose to “add” to Scripture, and “take away” from the power, authority, and honesty of the Word of God.
My point was that to believe in evolution, and profess to be a Christian is a contradictory statement. You can not say that, “I believe God is all powerful, and that the Word is divinely inspired through direct revelation of the Spirit, and I also believe that the Bible is fictitious, and that God didn’t really do what He says He did in Genesis.” Please note as well, that I am specifically talking about those who “argue” this point. I am in no way saying that Christians who have not yet read the Word, or might be confused and still trying to figure things out are sinning. I am saying that for a “Christian” to teach evolution (that God needed evolution to create man because He wasn’t powerful enough to “speak” life) is a false teacher, and calls God a liar. A true Christian can not believe that God is a liar.
It is impossible to believe both sides of that statement. In fact that is exactly what someone is saying when they say I am a Christian, and I believe in evolution.
It is possible to believe in God, and still believe in evolution. For believing in God does not mean that you are a professed Christian, in fact, my dealings have been that those involved in Satanic cults believe in God more than many of Christians.
Tristan, just as a side note, we will just have to agree to disagree on your comment: “A person can still hold to the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture without believing in inerrancy.” I am not quite sure how you can hold true that God wrote the Book, but there are errors (As far as the original text is concerned, and not in regards to individual English translations). I do know that this is a belief held by doctrine of certain denominations, and that is an entirely different topic ehich I am too ignorant on too much of the topic to debate. I do know what I belive, and why, I am just ignorant as to why others believe differently. Maybe one day Sean, Ron, or Steve will enlighten us with a topic on that ;)
Please know that I also, by no means, claim to know all of God’s Word, nor do I profess to understand all of it, or even fully understand all that I do know…you know?
Keep the Son in your eyes!
-Matt Gaiser
In response to, “Genesis chapter one is written in a form of Hebrew poetry that can easily be interpreted in more than one way,” I would like to say a thing or two.
1. Assuming that Genesis 1 is poetry, that still does not mean that the text isn’t historically accurate. Surely an author can use poetic language and still have the end in mind of accurately detailing historic events. However, I know you’re not saying that the text is inaccurate, but there are those who would claim that “since the author wrote in poetic form then we can either a.) interpret everything as merely symbolic, or b.) not know what the author meant to say at all.” This leaves the entire creation account open to subjectivity and speculation which will not only leave the debate of origins open to every form of fallacy (thesitic evolution, progressive creation, day-age theory, gap theory, etc.) but it also underminds every crucial biblical doctrine since they are all grounded in a historical Genesis.
2. Assuming that Gensis 1 is poetry, the text is still limited in what the author was trying to say. I know there are different types of interpretations of a passage given the different meanings in which the author writes it. But in the case of finding evolution in Gensis 1 I do not think that an evolutionary interpretation is even close to being any of the possible meanings of the text.
But both of these assume that Genesis 1 is poetry…
3. I do not think for one second that Genesis 1 is any form of Hebrew poetry. I believe that chapter 1, as well as all of the first 11 chapters, is historical narrative. I will admit that there certainly is repetition in Genesis chapter 1, e.g. ‘And God said …’ occurs 10 times; ‘and God saw that it was good/very good’ seven times; ‘after his/their kind’ 10 times; ‘And the evening and the morning were the … day’ six times. But nowhere in this repetition do we find the poetic forms of parallelism of ideas that constitutes Hebrew poetry, nor do we find the subject-verb-object (SVO) linguistic structure characteristic of Hebrew poetry (instead we find verb-subject-object (VSO) which is characteristic of Hebrew narrative, IE. Genesis 1:1 - “At-start created God the heavens and the earth” - VSO).
One example of true Hebrew poetry is Psalm 1:1 which says, “Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers.” (NRSV) In this text we find a triple parallelism in the nouns and verbs used: ‘follow’ ‘take’ ‘sit’ – ‘advice’ ‘path’ ‘seat’ – ‘wicked’ ‘sinners’ ‘scoffers.’ As well as this overt parallelism, there is also a covert or subtle progression of meaning. ‘Follow’ suggests short-term acquaintance, ‘take’ implies readiness to discuss, and ‘sit’ speaks of long-term involvement. Then ‘advice’ denotes general advice, ‘path’ indicates a chosen course of action, and ‘seat’ signifies a set condition of mind. And finally ‘wicked’ describes the negatively ungodly, ‘sinners’ characterizes the positively wicked, and ‘scoffers’ portrays the contemptuously wicked.
The verses in Genesis 1, as well as all of Genesis 1-11, do not contain information or invocation in any of the forms of Hebrew poetry, in either overt or covert form. In addition, a histoircal investigation will find that the first 11 chapters of Gensis have been traditionally interpreted literally by classical exegetes. Furthermore, contemporary Hebrew scholars of substance are in agreement that the author of Genesis 1-11 meant to convey to his audience historical truth. Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:
"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know." -Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984. Copy held by the author. Note that Prof. Barr does not claim to believe that Genesis is historically true; he is just telling us what, in his opinion, the language was meant to convey.
Yes, Genesis 1 has repitition. However, these repetitions have none of the types discussed above; rather they are statements of fact and thus a record of what happened, and possibly for emphasis — to indicate the importance of the words repeated. Why does it matter? It matters more than anything in this day in which we live. I Peter 1:3-7 says,
“First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the godless.”
Peter tells us that the last days will be marked by those who scoff at the fact that God created by His Word. The entire Genesis account is under attack this very day. Let’s not allow the text to be treated as anything other than what it was meant to be treated as – historical truth written in historical narrative.
I had a feeling this would spark some debate and conversation. Here's a few thoughts....
Genesis 1 presents the truth that Yahweh is the creator of the cosmos, but I'm still not convinced that it was meant to be interpretted in a strict modernistic, literal, and rigid interpretation. It may not be typical Hebrew poetry, but it is certainly written in a different form than the rest of the Genesis narrative. Genesis 2:4 begins with the statement "This is the generations (account of) the heaves and the earth..." which is the main theme of Genesis that unifies the remainder of the book. Most modern English translation present Genesis 1:1-2:3 indented and in poetic form, which indicates that most of the scholars identify it's unique structure and think that something is different about this part of Scripture. Maybe the author's purpose in writing Genesis 1 was "Yahweh is the Creator of everything" not "This is how Yahweh created everything."
Do we force literal interpretation on other parts of Scripture? When the psalmist writes that God "knit me together in my mother's womb" do we think that God literally got out his needles and yarn, or do we understand that what the psalmist is saying is that God was his creator (a process that we know involved sperm, egg, etc...).
Side note... My problem with the idea of innerancy is that we have no inerrant interpretation of the Scripture. Also, we don't have the inerrant original documents, so the belief seems pointless. Inspiration is the Scriptural term. I guess I just prefer the terms infallible, authoritative, and inspired.
You refer to interpreting the words of Genesis 1 literally as a “strict modernistic, literal, and rigid interpretation.” First of all, if you mean “strict” and “rigid” as meaning that the purpose of exegesis is to arrive at what the author intended us to understand, then I guess it is “strict” and” rigid.” I wouldn’t dare dump my baggage into a text, but rather induce truth from the text. If that makes me strict then I will wear that term like a badge. I would much rather be strict with my exegesis than be licentious. If we let the text speak for itself and read it within its own limited context we cannot treat it with subjective exegetical anarchy.
As for suggesting that interpreting the words of Genesis 1 literally is “modernistic” I’m not entirely sure what you meant by that. A view that the Earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days in the order in which Genesis 1 details for us does not exactly acquiesce with modern thought and ideas. Are you suggesting that taking a literal view of Genesis 1 is only a recent idea? Read what Saint Basil of Caesarea has to say about Genesis:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
creation/v16/i4/basil.asp
Once again, I’m still not sure what you meant by all that. But my methods of interpretation do not allow for an indefinite number of interpretations for a given text. A text is restricted by its form, content, context, and intent, and there is no internal or external evidence that Genesis 1 is meant to be read symbolically. The truth is quite contrary.
You said, “Do we force literal interpretation on other parts of Scripture? When the psalmist writes that God ‘knit me together in my mother's womb’ do we think that God literally got out his needles and yarn…” Of course we don’t. To treat a text that is obviously intended to be symbolic literally would be as equally as mistaken as to treat a text that is obviously intended to be historical narrative as merely symbolic. No one is saying that we have to read every single text literally. That is a foolish suggestion. I wouldn’t expect you to think I would read everything literally any more than you should expect me to think that you would read everything symbolically. Is Genesis 1 unique. Certainly. But does that automatically make it symbolic and thus open to, as you said earlier, “easily be interpreted in more than one way” – especially when it contains no known form of Hebrew poetry? I guess the burden of proof in my mind is on you.
As for “Most modern English translation present Genesis 1:1-2:3 indented and in poetic form, which indicates that most of the scholars identify it's unique structure and think that something is different about this part of Scripture” I did a quick survey of the immediate Bibles around me and was not able to verify this claim. Of the six translations I had at my immediate disposal only one of them indented the verses of chapter 1 – the NIV. All other five treated it as the rest of the historical narrations of the Pentateuch – NKJV, RSV, NASB, NRSV, and NLT. Besides, I doubt you, or any other serious exegete, uses the formatting of a contemporary English Bible to arrive at the truth of a text. I know I don’t.
I’ll give you the last word.
If we take away the idea of the Scriptures being inerrant (in its intirety - http://theevangelicalchurch.com/beliefs.htm#ARTICLE%20IV%20-%20THE%20HOLY%20SCRIPTURES ), then we leave room for scepticism which leads to liberal theology. No, we do not take all Scripture literally, but we (here at truth dialogue) do hold that the Scriptures are inerrant. Arguing for anything less (todays terms and ideology) like infallible, etc., is simply leaving room for skepticism. The Scriptures are either inerrant or not. By leaving room for skepticism we loose all absoluteness if that is a word)or objectivity. At that point I have no reason to continue to be a christian. What reason would there be to continue?
Tristan,
I wrote out a long argument, but it got deleted when I incorrectly used technology…so you will get the short version here.
Concerning your “maybe Genesis 1 should be considered poetry" agrument: It has been argued that the Noah’s ark story was allegory. It has been argued that the Tower of Babel was allegory. It has been argued that Daniel in the lion’s den was allegory. It has been argued that THE RESURRECTION WAS ALLEGORY. Should we apply this idea of poetry to all passages of scripture that contemporary historians do not want to believe are literal because believing that they are literal will possibly change the way that you should live your life?
Also, you use the argument “that we have no inerrant interpretation of the Scripture.” It seems that you are using this to make the point that we have little basis for literal interpretations of Genesis considering that we have no original documents and that we have to translate. However, you then use contemporary biblical translations (and interpretations) that demarcate the Genesis creation account with “indentations.” Why do you use the no-original-translation argument to back your argument up, but then use a non-original translation to reinforce the same argument? It seems a little illogical.
You also wrote "It may not be typical Hebrew poetry, but it is certainly written in a different form than the rest of the Genesis narrative." What does his prove? So, it is a different type of narrative. Does this automatically mean that the text contained within is to be interpreted as non-literal? How do you get from “the text is a different form” to “Maybe the author's purpose in writing Genesis 1 was "Yahweh is the Creator of everything" not "This is how Yahweh created everything." How does the first follow the second? Your connecting logic (“This is the generations (account of) the heavens and the earth”) does not show me how you can get from one to the other. Please expound on this.
Finaly, the only reason we want to argue that the Genesis creation account is not literal because the modernist and postmodernist thinkers wanted and want us to think this. Our culture wants to reconcile Scripture with bad science (which they think is good science).
But what about the X-Men? Aren't the "Children of the Atom" proof enough of evolution? At the beginning Prof. Xavier says that every few millenia evolution stake a giant step forward, doing away with the argument of "where are the inter-evolution stages" myth. Do you honestly think the Government would allow hollywood to propagate such logic-less rhetoric if there was no truth to it?
Cain Marko
Hmm, you know, that is one intelligent comment. I had never looked at it that way before. But after contemplating it, I guess the only thing to say is this:
Cain Marko, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Yeah, well... your Mom goes to college!!!!
Cain Marko
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
Back to Blog